Ender, I think that definitely highlights the biggest problem for Republicans right now... Romney couldn't do that because he had to get through the primary, and so he had a big run to the right to reassure the social conservatives, then try to get back to moderate positions after that. In some extent, I can see this as a problem when the president is chosen by the people, rather than by the party officials in some fashion, like what happens in the parliamentary systems. I do wish they could separate off from the religious conservatives since, as you said, they're not going anywhere.

I guess though, did Romney really need to do that? No, on the one hand. Because clearly results show that the working class right-wing vote, with it's love of bibles and hatred of Muslims and The Gay, don't matter when it comes to winning elections. They didn't help Mr Bush win; he had his own Mittens in the form of John Kerry.

And let's face it, if this particular slice of the right remains so utterly irrational as to believe half the things they believe, they'll vote for the non-Obama alternative regardless.

As you said, therefore, the problem lies with the party. You're actually luckier, in a way; Australians have shown they would prefer Kevin Rudd leading the Labor Party, and Malcolm Turnbull leading the Liberal Party, but we get party-palatable leaders instead. Your system affords someone who can poll well with middle America more of a chance (in theory at least).

Mainly, what I think needs to happen, is that the ultra-conservative bloc needs to spring out on its own to form a new party...

You can manipulate a group without catering to them, though. I mean, heck, I'd have far fewer problems if they were manipulating them, because their policies wouldn't keep showing up. I don't think it's helping that the Republicans being controlled by religious conservatives in some states has been bleeding over to hurt the standing of the party in states that have more moderate Republican parties, and so the non-religious conservatives are moving away from the party, and it's losing other influences that might help to direct the party back away from some of the more ridiculous things they're doing. It's going to stay in this same spot as pushing dangerously extreme policies.

Ender, for the general he didn't, but to get to the general, he did. The party is so focused on how moderate is a bad word that the moderate candidates end up masquerading as staunch social conservatives just to have a chance.

Kucinich gets ignored because his views are just plain silly, and he more or less stands alone in voicing them. Akin's views however are backed up at least to some degree by the hardline anti-abortion camp. One of these stands some chance of becoming reality, while the other does not...therefore it makes sense to treat one seriously and not the other.

Sorry I missed this, but this is exactly how I hoped someone would answer, because it proves the one above point I was trying to make.

Even though Kucinich gets ignored at the national level, he still continues to get elected at his local level. Why? I think a fringe group like Code Pink, or just about every blogger at Mother Jones would disagree with you about how how fringe Kucinich's views should be. Are they legitimate, or illegitimate subsets of the democratic party? See, on one hand, you dismiss Kucinich because his views are silly, but on the other, you characterize views that are just as silly as backed up by the party you disagree with. Akin's views were extreme, and not shared by the GOP. The national party even tried to get him to step down, which he ignored, which doomed his chances even more. I used the Clinton-Lewinsky example to highlight that Lewisky wasn't just a random fling, she was an intern, which Clinton had control over. Clinton even paid Jones just about a million dollars, because his instances of sexual harassment weren't isolated. Does the national party share Clinton's view that all women are sexual playthings to be thrown away? That he's perpetually in a bad episode of Mad Men?. No, of course not. Because as you did with Kucinich, you viewed his opinions as his own.Clinton himself has even recovered from any fallout of his own indiscretions. The problem with Clinton, and Akin, and others isn't their party identification, it's that they believe they are untouchable. In a simple word, it's called hubris. But on one hand, you so easily dismiss a politician from one party as a fluke, but on the other, in your opinion, it's backed up to one degree or the other.

Ender, for the general he didn't, but to get to the general, he did. The party is so focused on how moderate is a bad word that the moderate candidates end up masquerading as staunch social conservatives just to have a chance.

Fair point, and I would probably agree. Really, so long as it remains in the interest of religious conservatives to support the GOP (i.e. it's their best chance at elected office) the GOP'll be held hostage to them.

We can all agree that the GOP needs to go back to being a moderate, centre-right party that doesn't embrace lowest common denominator mob politics. A party that's not so scared of modernity that it makes a mockery of science at the expense of crude superstition. This, however, is all "in theory". In reality, the GOP has started to 'double down' on the crazy, obstructionist policies so...

Ender, I think that definitely highlights the biggest problem for Republicans right now... Romney couldn't do that because he had to get through the primary, and so he had a big run to the right to reassure the social conservatives, then try to get back to moderate positions after that. In some extent, I can see this as a problem when the president is chosen by the people, rather than by the party officials in some fashion, like what happens in the parliamentary systems. I do wish they could separate off from the religious conservatives since, as you said, they're not going anywhere.

I guess though, did Romney really need to do that? No, on the one hand. Because clearly results show that the working class right-wing vote, with it's love of bibles and hatred of Muslims and The Gay, don't matter when it comes to winning elections. They didn't help Mr Bush win; he had his own Mittens in the form of John Kerry.

And let's face it, if this particular slice of the right remains so utterly irrational as to believe half the things they believe, they'll vote for the non-Obama alternative regardless.

As you said, therefore, the problem lies with the party. You're actually luckier, in a way; Australians have shown they would prefer Kevin Rudd leading the Labor Party, and Malcolm Turnbull leading the Liberal Party, but we get party-palatable leaders instead. Your system affords someone who can poll well with middle America more of a chance (in theory at least).

Mainly, what I think needs to happen, is that the ultra-conservative bloc needs to spring out on its own to form a new party...

Our system doesn't have much incentive for them to do that. Maybe if we had more proportional voting and first past the post? Perhaps. But not now.

Hey ES, dont know if you intended it or not but Tim Dalton....vastly underrated Bond.

Sorry I missed this, but this is exactly how I hoped someone would answer, because it proves the one above point I was trying to make.

Even though Kucinich gets ignored at the national level, he still continues to get elected at his local level. Why? I think a fringe group like Code Pink, or just about every blogger at Mother Jones would disagree with you about how how fringe Kucinich's views should be. Are they legitimate, or illegitimate subsets of the democratic party? See, on one hand, you dismiss Kucinich because his views are silly, but on the other, you characterize views that are just as silly as backed up by the party you disagree with. Akin's views were extreme, and not shared by the GOP. The national party even tried to get him to step down, which he ignored, which doomed his chances even more. I used the Clinton-Lewinsky example to highlight that Lewisky wasn't just a random fling, she was an intern, which Clinton had control over. Clinton even paid Jones just about a million dollars, because his instances of sexual harassment weren't isolated. Does the national party share Clinton's view that all women are sexual playthings to be thrown away? That he's perpetually in a bad episode of Mad Men?. No, of course not. Because as you did with Kucinich, you viewed his opinions as his own.Clinton himself has even recovered from any fallout of his own indiscretions. The problem with Clinton, and Akin, and others isn't their party identification, it's that they believe they are untouchable. In a simple word, it's called hubris. But on one hand, you so easily dismiss a politician from one party as a fluke, but on the other, in your opinion, it's backed up to one degree or the other.

Uhh.... Kucinich lost, months ago, in the primary...

Also, the key is that the GOP flip-flopped and started backing Akin again. Which showed voters that they really didn't view his views to be as bad as they said they did.

And he lost the primary in the newly-combined distict, but I'd still like to know what specific policy issues Kucinich is fringe on, to see if any of those may have had an effect, just want to see if me and KK are on the same page on them first.

And he lost the primary in the newly-combined distict, but I'd still like to know what specific policy issues Kucinich is fringe on, to see if any of those may have had an effect, just want to see if me and KK are on the same page on them first.

And he lost the primary in the newly-combined distict, but I'd still like to know what specific policy issues Kucinich is fringe on, to see if any of those may have had an effect, just want to see if me and KK are on the same page on them first.

I remember him from, I think the Bush/Kerry election. I remember one of the things he talked about was the idea of a Peace Department, instead of the War Department.

And he lost the primary in the newly-combined distict, but I'd still like to know what specific policy issues Kucinich is fringe on, to see if any of those may have had an effect, just want to see if me and KK are on the same page on them first.

I remember him from, I think the Bush/Kerry election. I remember one of the things he talked about was the idea of a Peace Department, instead of the War Department.

And he lost the primary in the newly-combined distict, but I'd still like to know what specific policy issues Kucinich is fringe on, to see if any of those may have had an effect, just want to see if me and KK are on the same page on them first.

I remember him from, I think the Bush/Kerry election. I remember one of the things he talked about was the idea of a Peace Department, instead of the War Department.

That's called the US Department of State.

Those are his words not mine. but he came off looking pretty fringe....

Do you know what the Republican Party needs? It needs someone line Joseph Welch to "have you no sense of decency?" to the entire party, rather than just one person. To do so could take a career in politics, or at least a long while.

And he lost the primary in the newly-combined distict, but I'd still like to know what specific policy issues Kucinich is fringe on, to see if any of those may have had an effect, just want to see if me and KK are on the same page on them first.

I remember him from, I think the Bush/Kerry election. I remember one of the things he talked about was the idea of a Peace Department, instead of the War Department.

That's called the US Department of State.

Those are his words not mine. but he came off looking pretty fringe....

Yeah that's a stupid idea... but I wanted to ask Kimball to see what he thought was fringe.

Because, for example, saying you supported Marriage Equality in 2004 would probably be considered fringe, at least by conservatives. So I just wanted to see which policy ideas KK thought were the fringiest for him, then I'd know how to respond to his question if any of those positiosn hurt him politically.

And he lost the primary in the newly-combined distict, but I'd still like to know what specific policy issues Kucinich is fringe on, to see if any of those may have had an effect, just want to see if me and KK are on the same page on them first.

I remember him from, I think the Bush/Kerry election. I remember one of the things he talked about was the idea of a Peace Department, instead of the War Department.

That's called the US Department of State.

Those are his words not mine. but he came off looking pretty fringe....

Yeah that's a stupid idea... but I wanted to ask Kimball to see what he thought was fringe.

Because, for example, saying you supported Marriage Equality in 2004 would probably be considered fringe, at least by conservatives. So I just wanted to see which policy ideas KK thought were the fringiest for him, then I'd know how to respond to his question if any of those positiosn hurt him politically.

I would definitely put Kucinich's "Department of Peace" on the list. I would also include his repeated attempts to outright ban all handguns, and his repeated attempts to impeach both Bush and Cheney (to the point of filing articles of impeachment).

However, the person you should really be asking is Mr44. He's the one that initially brought up Kucinich as an example of fringe in the Democratic Party. I merely pointed out that your response (that he lost the primary this year) still doesn't account for how he was reelected 7 times previously.

One thing that stands out is how the Obama campaign stepped in to exploit this GOP weakness of forced displays of conservative credentials during the Republican primaries, basically enticing some of the candidates to step in and attack Romney.

Your whole approach is wrong-headed though, KK. Kucinich is not an appropriate point of comparison to Akin. He had very liberal views that were compatible with his district but could not be sold more broadly. As a result, his career arrested. He was a perpetual House member, with no chance of moving up the ranks in his Party, because policy positions he would not compromise on precluded that. By contrast, Akin was problematic because he, like Mourdock, O'Donnell, and Angle before him, fell upward. Conservative voters rewarded him specifically for his "bold" voicing of strident and radical viewpoints that made him more broadly unelectable. It is also important to point that while Akin's specific remarks helped to tilt an otherwise very conservative state away from him, his underlying view--held broadly within the Party-- was also rejected. The Blunt amendment drew very negative public reaction, and it was a major initiative by the House, Senate, and Presidential nominee. While rape remarks were something of an exclamation point, a gender gap had already opened and a "war on women" narrative was already moving along healthily on the basis of remarks about the intention to defund Planned Parenthood, and the extremely limited allowances for abortion that represented even the most "moderate" voices during the primary season. It was not just a problem of two particular individuals that made two poorly worded statements. The whole party was getting hit because the whole party's position was, in fact, judged to be too extreme. How do Republicans walk that back, when they've built up so much around their "culture of life?"

Or similarly, on the issue of minority outreach, newspapers report that at the University of Mississippi, news of the President's re-election was greeted by crowds of hundreds burning his campaign materials and using racial slurs. This is the spontaneous behavior of the GOP base. When conservative commentators accuse Obama of trying to implement slavery reparations, a former Chief of Staff feels comfortable impugning a highly accomplished former Secretary of State and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on a racial basis, and politicians becomes Presidential front-runners after endorsing D'Souza's bigoted interpretation of Obama's Presidency, you can't say that this sort of attitude isn't at some level being encouraged. But again, even if it wasn't, if those are your supporters, how do you expect to carry them with you when you suddenly transition to a message of tolerance, or forbid openly racist remarks directed against the President?

Or for a third example, consider their current rhetoric about the role of government. Most clearly highlighted in Romney's "47%" comments, but also in the broader Rand-influenced discourse that is so popular in conservative circles now, something has fundamentally changed. To whatever extent it was before, the conservative message is no longer simply about empowering people to do for themselves without government help. With increasing explicitness, the takers/makers dichotomy bespeaks disdain for anyone who dares to require public assistance of any sort, at any time in their lives. It will take quite impressive rhetorical acrobatics to go from decrying people as worthless leeches to suggesting there may be room for the in the party after all. Especially since, in the immediate post-election period, a number of conservative commentators are merely mourning the fact that country has been taken over by "people that want stuff" which is exactly the sort of disparaging attitude that drove these voters away in the first place.

I think you're kidding yourself if you believe that the Republican Party only needs to make small or easy adjustments in the days ahead.

Your whole approach is wrong-headed though, KK. Kucinich is not an appropriate point of comparison to Akin.

Why do you call it my approach? I'm not the one who brought him up! I simply pointed out that he regularly got reelected until this year.

If you are going to complain that the approach is wrong, talk to
@Mr44. He's the one that chose that approach.

And that's not even correct, as it was Alpha-Red who labled Kucinich's views "silly" (the fringe part came later, but captures the same essence.)

Everyone is forgetting why I brought Kucinich up in the first place. It was put forth that Akin's views weren't extreme, they represented the core of that belief system. Except Akin's views are most certainly extreme, and in fact, the national republican party (not the democrats- the GOP itself) tried to oust Akin because his statements don't match up to the core. But there was really nothing the party could do at the local level, as one of the great aspects of the system is that anyone can run for office. It's kind of linked to free speech and all.... Kucinich was used as an an example of a candidate who lost at the national level whenever he ran for President, but continued to win re-election at the local level, despite the fact that some of his views were fringe related to the overall democratic party.

KK's reply of "After only 16 years in Congress. He was first elected in 1996, after all. So, did his views just become fringe this year, or were they always fringe, and he just kept getting elected anyways" cuts right through to the core of the issue. After all, Alpha-Red-a die hard liberal with no negative connotation to the term- recognized Kucinich as extreme, but Kucinich was elected, and re-elected 3 times in his district, and was able to run for President twice with the blessing of the national party, even though he never really was a viable candidate. Kucinich only finally lost, not because people said "wow, he's a wacko, let's oust him..." but because of re-districting. Again, I'm sure there are those at Code Pink or Mother Jones who don't consider Kucinich fringe at all. In fact, there are voters in Ohio who continued to vote for Kucinich even though they knew he was not suited for higher office.

That's my point, because it seems that there is no reverse buffer. There's an unspoken allowance that a politician like Kucinich is just one person and entitled to his views just leave him alone, nod when he walks into the room...Even people within Kucinich's own party recognized him as too extreme for the national level, but allowed him to remain a candidate for nearly 2 decades. But for some reason, whenever there is a candidate on the other side, like Akin, who holds an extreme view, there is no allowance. Suddenly, Akin isn't just one man, he represents the views of everyone who is of the same party. What's the GOP supposed to do? Assassinate him if he continues to run? Break his legs? The entire election process is self correcting. Akin lost, and lost badly, and should be criticized. But no one should pretend that he represents every politician who might have a (R) after their name because he ran on that ticket.

so 88% of all romney voters were white, a majority in decline. romney's share of the white vote was 59%, just short of his campaign goal of 60% and up 4% from Mccain's 55%. the gop finds itself in a bit of a catch 22 situation where they're increasingly entirely dependent on a white voting population that will look poorly on them trying to pander to the minorities they actually need to win the presidency. the long-prophesied demographic tipping point that makes a rump party of the GOP could finally be here. at the very least it looms very large in this election. the ultimate signifier of GOP doom will be when texas and its mammoth 38 electoral votes swing blue. lets take a look at what austinist.com has to say about that little scenario:

But the Republican Party shouldn't count its electoral votes before they are hatched. Two recent polls by the Pew Research Center and Quinnipiac University could spell doom for the Republican Party this November in the Lone Star State in a head-to-head matchup between Barack Obama and the expected Republican nominee Mitt Romney. According to the Pew survey, Obama leads Romney 53% - 40% among women voters nationwide regardless of party affiliation. This is due in part to the recent spate of bills proposed or passed by Republican legislatures in states across the nation that attempt to limit women's access to contraception or restrict access to reproductive health care. Last year, Texas passed into law its own forced sonogram bill that mandates government ordered, medically unnecessary, sonograms for women seeking abortions in all cases regardless of doctor or patient wishes. That coupled with the loss of federal funds for women's health care in Texas due to Republican refusal to include Planned Parenthood in Medicaid contracts means 130,00 low-income women will lose access to cancer screening and many other basic medical services. Female voters make up 53 percent of all voters in Texas, and women voted for John McCain 52% to 47% over Obama in the state. If that number flips as current polling indicates, that would move more than 210,000 votes to the Democrats.

The Quinnipiac University poll is even more troubling for the Republican Party. According to that survey, Hispanic voters favor Obama 64% to 24%. Romney's February declaration of Arizona's onerous anti-immigration law as a "model for the nation" along with his vow to kill the Dream Act if elected have put him squarely at odds with the majority of Hispanic voters. In 2008, 35% of Hispanic voters favored McCain in Texas. At his current polling, Romney would lose at least 150,000 votes. And keep in mind, Texas gained four congressional districts in this year's race in part because more than 2 million Latino residents have moved to the state in the past decade. According to the William C. Velasquez Institute, Latino voters increased by more than 150,000 in the 2008 elections over the 2004 election despite a 4.5% decrease in registered Latino voters.

while i think its much more likely that the reason the media made the race seem much closer than it was is a simple case of self-interested corporations acting in their own best interest (closer race, more viewers/readers), its also possible that the white-run media was simply out of touch. i mean look at this nonsense the NYT posted the week before the election:

[T]here is a tangible sense—seen in Romney yard signs on the expansive lawns of homes in the well-heeled suburbs, and heard in the excited voices of Republican mothers who make phone calls to voters in their spare time—that the race is tilting toward Mr. Romney.

meanwhile, in reality, obama won pennsylvania by 5 points.

back thru the looking glass for some bill o'reilly:

t's a changing country, the demographics are changing, it's not a traditional America anymore. And there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it and he ran on it.

And, whereby, 20 years ago President Obama would have been roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney. The white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that this economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff.

You're going to see atremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama and women will probably break President Obama's way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?

bill does a good job closely coupling the racist submerged content of the 47%/"they want stuff" argument with its rhetoric. here we see its not the hardworking, white, establishment males that "want stuff", its the latinos, the blacks, and the women who are the problem. they're destroying traditional america

guess what bill? yes, obama won the black vote and the latino vote and the women vote. he also won the asian vote by 2:1. and that was enough to win the american vote because being an american isnt just for "traditional americans" like you anymore, bill. but you still dont see it that way and that's why you lose